Talk:Cécile Mourer-Chauviré

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Cécile Mourer (talk · contribs)

BLP sources?

@Lopifalko: you tagged this for "BLP sources" here. What is wrong with Ursula B. Göhlich's paper? [1] Eostrix (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for writing this article. A biography of a living person needs needs multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. I reviewed the article positively because she is clearly notable, but it needs these sources to prove that. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Göhlich paper bad or good in your eyes? Or is it just the number of sources? Eostrix (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as I'm not so good at academic referencing. I see that the subject as seen in the paper's photograph has a name tag with the same logo as the paper has at its top, so is this paper independent? Either way, you need more than one source (which I see you have now done) and everything that could in any way be contentious in the article must have a reliable source. Primary sources are OK for incontrovertible and basic facts, otherwise secondary sources are required. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same academic society, SAPE, that gave her a tribute. But the author is unrelated to Mourer-Chauviré. Göhlich works at Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria. The other Wikipedias use this reference. I'm new here, who would you suggest we ask for use of this reference? Eostrix (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask specifically about sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can ask any questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag as at present there are four independent references, which is fairly good for an academic.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]